lessons_version

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get ... version,' which implies a read operation but discloses nothing about the response format, whether it returns a bare string or extended metadata, or whether any state affects the result. For a simple probe the gap is modest, but the description adds zero behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single seven-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler and no repetition of the tool name. Every word earns its place; the brevity is appropriate for a zero-parameter version probe.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Invocation is trivially simple with no parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations, making the description the only information source. An agent knows what the tool does yet must guess at the response shape and has no guidance on when to prefer it over the other version tools. Adequate for a minimal tool, but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not explain arguments, and the single sentence correctly implies an argument-free invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('Lessons (Hodiny) module API version'), making the tool's function clear. It follows an identifiable version-tool pattern seen among siblings (attendance_version, payments_version, courses_version) and is easily distinguished from functional siblings like lessons_list or lessons_rooms. Minor ambiguity remains about whether 'version' refers to the API version or module version, but the intent is essentially unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the parallel version probes (attendance_version, payments_version, courses_version) or when a version check is appropriate. The description provides no context, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer that this is the Lessons-module version probe from naming conventions alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.